[geo] Climate impacts of a large-scale biofuels expansion - Hallgren - 2013 GRL

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note : of potential relevance to BECS / BECCS. NB, however, that
lower prices associated with such fuels for CDR may not motivate large
scale clearances as described.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50352/abstract

Keywords:

Land use;climate impacts;biofuels[1] A global biofuels program will
potentially lead to intense pressures on land supply and cause widespread
transformations in land use. These transformations can alter the Earth
climate system by increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land use
changes and by changing the reflective and energy exchange characteristics
of land ecosystems. Using an integrated assessment model that links an
economic model with climate, terrestrial biogeochemistry, and biogeophysics
models, we examined the biogeochemical and biogeophysical effects of
possible land use changes from an expanded global second-generation
bioenergy program on surface temperatures over the first half of the 21st
century. Our integrated assessment model shows that land clearing,
especially forest clearing, has two concurrent effects—increased GHG
emissions, resulting in surface air warming; and large changes in the
land's reflective and energy exchange characteristics, resulting in surface
air warming in the tropics but cooling in temperate and polar regions.
Overall, these biogeochemical and biogeophysical effects will only have a
small impact on global mean surface temperature. However, the model
projects regional patterns of enhanced surface air warming in the Amazon
Basin and the eastern part of the Congo Basin. Therefore, global land use
strategies that protect tropical forests could dramatically reduce air
warming projected in these regions.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)

[Michael Hayes]

Ron et al.,


You asked for feedback on the HSRC in defense of the "NOT GE" (* "I hope we
can hear from others who would say this final example is NOT geo")* argument.
And, I believe the HSRC event would make a good moot court exercise on this
overall issue.


One possible moot court opening statement in defense of the HSRC event may
read as such:


In my most humble opinion, the *primary 'intent'* of the HSRC principles
was to mitigate local declining salmon stock, the decline being due to
multiple anthropogenic causes, by those in rightful ownership of the area
known as the "salmon pasture". Yet, the project also offered, and
used, a *secondary
'intent' *as an opportunity to gain valuable scientific and practical
knowledge at a scale which is well within the opinion of the leading
scientific authority on this issue, The Center for Biological Diversity
(CBD), as it does explicitly accepts small scale GE
experimentation/investigation. Thus, the *primary 'intent'* was not of GE
significance and the *secondary 'intent'* was well within the proper scope
and scale of GE related scientific field investigations accepted by the
leading global authority on this issue; The Center for Biological Diversity.


In the best opinion of the CBD, it offers the phrase *"Scale and intent are
of central importance."*. *True*. That logic is obvious to all
investigators seriously concerned with the GE issue. Was the *'scale'* of
the *primary 'intent' *(i.e.mitigating local wild salmon stock decline due
to a well recognized human induced decline in the stock) *significantly
large enough* to impact the planetary environment? *No*. Was the *secondary
'intent'* (i.e. collect GE related data and gain practical field
investigational experience) carried out to the degree that the planetary
environmental matrix was change in any significant way? *No.*


*The standard of GE 'scale' has not been met and the standard of GE
'intent'was well within the scope of the best 'opinion' of the leading
global
scientific authority.*
*
*
*
*
Thus, I would petition the jury to acquit the HSRC principals of the
primary charge of wrongful GE as the actions simply did not exceed a
*reasonably
scientifically knowable* degree of harm or good at the planetary level.
Also, I petition the jury to acquit the defendants on the lesser charge, of
wrongful GE experimentation/investigation, as the CBD does allow for such
actions and the *'best known scientific and engineering practices*' in this
field were followed.


The moot court would now hear the oppositions' opening statement.


*
*
In pursuit of a refinement of the word 'Geoengineering', and thus the
bedrock of the scientific/engineering/philosophical/legal disciplines which
are evolving around this concept, any new definition should be tested
through this type of open moot court challenge. I believe it may be useful
in limiting the subjective pitfalls inherent in this debate.



Best,



Michael
*
*
*
*




On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Ronal W. Larson
wrote:

> Ken,  Jim, etal
>
> The following more responding to Jim than Ken.   Warning - the
> comments are mostly from a biochar perspective, and may not even be
> representing that group.  But I am trying also to represent many of the CDR
> approaches as well.
>  The critical "geo" issue I don't see mentioned in most of this is
> ocean acidification  (not being addressed by SRM), so wonder if that
> distinction is well enough covered by both definitions below
>
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ken Caldeira 
> wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> We all know that things written by committee often don't turn out well,
> but to aid comparison, here are both definitions:
>
> CBD:
>
> "Geoengineering" is
>
>  A deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and
> scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its impacts.
>
>
>
>  *[RWL1:  I sense that the developers of this definition did not have
> the concern that Ken has in his accompanying remarks - that the term
> "geoengineering" has become almost synonymous with SRM.  More below on the
> reasons that Ken (and I) aren't comfortable with this very
> (too?) broad definition.*
> * I believe that only a small percentage of biochar projects are now
> being undertaken for climate reasons - rather most are undertaken for
> food/soil reasons.  Jim and Ken and others:  would that food/soil intention
> keep a biochar from being defined as "geoengineering"  by this above?  How
> about for Ken's next?
> *
>
>
> Alternate candidate definition:
>
> "Geoengineering" refers to activities
>
> (1) intended to modify climate
>
> (2) and that has a greater than *de minimis *effect on an international
> commons or across international borders
>
> (3) and where that greater than *de minimis* effect occurs through
> environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols
> and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
> *
> *
> I suggest that the latter definition would be more

Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)

[Ken Caldeira]

I am open to refinement, but I think Dave Hawkins comments point out the
merit of this approach.  This approach is based on facts and not on
counterfactuals. Avoiding emissions is not modifying climate. It is an
avoidance of a modification to climate. A reduction in greenhouse gas
concentrations is no more a counterfactual than a reduction of temperature
of a glass of water is a counterfactual.

---

I am not intending this discussion to lead to an end point. I am trying to
provide a better starting point for a legally useful definition that can be
used as a basis for international discussions among states.  I am hoping
that others will adopt this basic approach and refine it.

---

A rewording to try to make point (3) clearer:

"Geoengineering" refers to activities

(1) intended to modify climate

(2) and that have a greater than *de minimis *effect on an international
commons or across international borders

(3) and where that greater than *de minimis* effect occurs through
environmental mechanisms that are not a direct consequence of any resulting
reduction in anthropogenic aerosol and/or greenhouse gas concentrations.


Again, my intent is to allow useful technologies to be developed that
present no special novel risks, including biochar, biomass energy with CCS,
reforestation, and many other possible approaches, some of which we may not
have thought of already and so cannot be put on a list of exclusions.

___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira




On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Ronal W. Larson
wrote:

> Professor Hayes  (with ccs)
>
> Your moot court idea for the recent HSRC situation is wonderful.  You
> made a good case for the defense, but I would really also like to hear a
> real (or classroom) dialog after some serious scholarly studies of the
> case.
>
> The key I suppose is who and how many judges are in charge of the
> courtroom.I want at least nine as this is a matter of Supreme
> importance.  I think we can expect a split decision, based on what I
> remember in the press.
>
> I can think of some other (fictitious now) cases as well - and Jim
> Thomas offered some.
>
> But we shouldn't wait for any law professors or students listening in
> to report back.  I am anxious to hear right now from "lawyers" who might be
> retained by the other side (actually both sides) in this case you nobly
> defend.
>
> Ron
>
>ps   I believe "principles" below could be "principals" (which also
> appears)..
>
>
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 8:44 PM, Michael Hayes  wrote:
>
> Ron et al.,
>
>
> You asked for feedback on the HSRC in defense of the "NOT GE" (* "I hope
> we can hear from others who would say this final example is NOT geo")* 
> argument.
> And, I believe the HSRC event would make a good moot court exercise on this
> overall issue.
>
>
> One possible moot court opening statement in defense of the HSRC event may
> read as such:
>
>
> In my most humble opinion, the *primary 'intent'* of the HSRC principles
> was to mitigate local declining salmon stock, the decline being due to
> multiple anthropogenic causes, by those in rightful ownership of the area
> known as the "salmon pasture". Yet, the project also offered, and used, a
> *secondary 'intent' *as an opportunity to gain valuable scientific and
> practical knowledge at a scale which is well within the opinion of the
> leading scientific authority on this issue, The Center for Biological
> Diversity (CBD), as it does explicitly accepts small scale GE
> experimentation/investigation. Thus, the *primary 'intent'* was not of GE
> significance and the *secondary 'intent'* was well within the proper
> scope and scale of GE related scientific field investigations accepted by
> the leading global authority on this issue; The Center for Biological
> Diversity.
>
>
> In the best opinion of the CBD, it offers the phrase *"Scale and intent
> are of central importance."*. *True*. That logic is obvious to all
> investigators seriously concerned with the GE issue. Was the *'scale'* of
> the *primary 'intent' *(i.e.mitigating local wild salmon stock decline
> due to a well recognized human induced decline in the stock) *significantly
> large enough* to impact the planetary environment? *No*. Was the *secondary
> 'intent'* (i.e. collect GE related data and gain practical field
> investigational experience) carried out to the degree that the planetary
> environmental matrix was change in any significant way? *No.*
>
>
> *The standard of GE 'scale' has not been met and the standard of 
> GE'intent'was well within the scope of the best 'opinion' of the leading 
> global
> scientific authority.*
> *
> *
> *
> *
> Thus, I would petition the jury to acquit the HSRC principals of the
> primary charge of wrongful GE as the actions simply did not exceed a 
> *reasonably
>

Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)

[Ronal W. Larson]

Professor Hayes  (with ccs)

Your moot court idea for the recent HSRC situation is wonderful.  You made 
a good case for the defense, but I would really also like to hear a real (or 
classroom) dialog after some serious scholarly studies of the case.  

The key I suppose is who and how many judges are in charge of the 
courtroom.I want at least nine as this is a matter of Supreme importance.  
I think we can expect a split decision, based on what I remember in the press.

I can think of some other (fictitious now) cases as well - and Jim Thomas 
offered some.

But we shouldn't wait for any law professors or students listening in to 
report back.  I am anxious to hear right now from "lawyers" who might be 
retained by the other side (actually both sides) in this case you nobly defend.

Ron

   ps   I believe "principles" below could be "principals" (which also 
appears)..


On Sep 25, 2013, at 8:44 PM, Michael Hayes  wrote:

> Ron et al.,
> 
> 
> You asked for feedback on the HSRC in defense of the "NOT GE" ( "I hope we 
> can hear from others who would say this final example is NOT geo") argument. 
> And, I believe the HSRC event would make a good moot court exercise on this 
> overall issue.
> 
> 
> One possible moot court opening statement in defense of the HSRC event may 
> read as such:
> 
> 
> In my most humble opinion, the primary 'intent' of the HSRC principles was to 
> mitigate local declining salmon stock, the decline being due to multiple 
> anthropogenic causes, by those in rightful ownership of the area known as the 
> "salmon pasture". Yet, the project also offered, and used, a secondary 
> 'intent' as an opportunity to gain valuable scientific and practical 
> knowledge at a scale which is well within the opinion of the leading 
> scientific authority on this issue, The Center for Biological Diversity 
> (CBD), as it does explicitly accepts small scale GE 
> experimentation/investigation. Thus, the primary 'intent' was not of GE 
> significance and the secondary 'intent' was well within the proper scope and 
> scale of GE related scientific field investigations accepted by the leading 
> global authority on this issue; The Center for Biological Diversity.
> 
> 
> In the best opinion of the CBD, it offers the phrase "Scale and intent are of 
> central importance.". True. That logic is obvious to all investigators 
> seriously concerned with the GE issue. Was the 'scale' of the primary 
> 'intent' (i.e.mitigating local wild salmon stock decline due to a well 
> recognized human induced decline in the stock) significantly large enough to 
> impact the planetary environment? No. Was the secondary 'intent' (i.e. 
> collect GE related data and gain practical field investigational experience) 
> carried out to the degree that the planetary environmental matrix was change 
> in any significant way? No.
> 
> 
> The standard of GE 'scale' has not been met and the standard of GE 'intent' 
> was well within the scope of the best 'opinion' of the leading global 
> scientific authority.
> 
> 
> Thus, I would petition the jury to acquit the HSRC principals of the primary 
> charge of wrongful GE as the actions simply did not exceed a reasonably 
> scientifically knowable degree of harm or good at the planetary level. Also, 
> I petition the jury to acquit the defendants on the lesser charge, of 
> wrongful GE experimentation/investigation, as the CBD does allow for such 
> actions and the 'best known scientific and engineering practices' in this 
> field were followed.
> 
> 
> The moot court would now hear the oppositions' opening statement.
> 
> 
> 
> In pursuit of a refinement of the word 'Geoengineering', and thus the bedrock 
> of the scientific/engineering/philosophical/legal disciplines which are 
> evolving around this concept, any new definition should be tested through 
> this type of open moot court challenge. I believe it may be useful in 
> limiting the subjective pitfalls inherent in this debate. 
> 
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> 
> 
> Michael  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Ronal W. Larson  
> wrote:
> Ken,  Jim, etal
> 
> The following more responding to Jim than Ken.   Warning - the comments 
> are mostly from a biochar perspective, and may not even be representing that 
> group.  But I am trying also to represent many of the CDR approaches as well. 
>  
>  The critical "geo" issue I don't see mentioned in most of this is ocean 
> acidification  (not being addressed by SRM), so wonder if that distinction is 
> well enough covered by both definitions below
> 
> 
> On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ken Caldeira  
> wrote:
> 
>> Jim,
>> 
>> We all know that things written by committee often don't turn out well, but 
>> to aid comparison, here are both definitions:
>> 
>> CBD:
>> 
>> "Geoengineering" is
>> 
>>  A deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and 
>> scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its impac

Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)

[Ronal W. Larson]

Ken,  Jim, etal

The following more responding to Jim than Ken.   Warning - the comments are 
mostly from a biochar perspective, and may not even be representing that group. 
 But I am trying also to represent many of the CDR approaches as well.  
 The critical "geo" issue I don't see mentioned in most of this is ocean 
acidification  (not being addressed by SRM), so wonder if that distinction is 
well enough covered by both definitions below


On Sep 25, 2013, at 1:28 PM, Ken Caldeira  wrote:

> Jim,
> 
> We all know that things written by committee often don't turn out well, but 
> to aid comparison, here are both definitions:
> 
> CBD:
> 
> "Geoengineering" is
> 
>  A deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and 
> scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its impacts. 

 [RWL1:  I sense that the developers of this definition did not have the 
concern that Ken has in his accompanying remarks - that the term 
"geoengineering" has become almost synonymous with SRM.  More below on the 
reasons that Ken (and I) aren't comfortable with this very (too?) broad 
definition.
 I believe that only a small percentage of biochar projects are now being 
undertaken for climate reasons - rather most are undertaken for food/soil 
reasons.  Jim and Ken and others:  would that food/soil intention keep a 
biochar from being defined as "geoengineering"  by this above?  How about for 
Ken's next?
> 
> Alternate candidate definition:
> 
> "Geoengineering" refers to activities 
> 
> (1) intended to modify climate
> 
> (2) and that has a greater than de minimis effect on an international commons 
> or across international borders 
> 
> (3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through 
> environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols 
> and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
> 
> 
> I suggest that the latter definition would be more useful and more easily 
> applied in practice and do less damage to the development of technologies 
> such as biochar, biomass energy with CCS, reforestation, and so on, that 
> present no special risks, cross-border issues, international commons issues, 
> etc.

  [RWL2:  I like the three-part definition.   It would be very helpful to 
have Jim also make a comment on this one.  This fails in what way?   More (much 
more) on Jim's message below.  

  The words "de minimis" seem to mean (from quick googling) trivial or not 
worth considering in a law suit.   I believe this to be true for individual 
biochar projects involving only one buyer and seller (or maybe self-produced), 
but would claim a total opposite is possible collectively - certainly multiple 
wedges have been proposed.  I hope JIm (and others) can comment on where 
biochar (as an example - could be afforestation, etc), can be well received at 
the individual user level, but be harmful globally.  Biochar proponents would 
claim that the future impacts are going to be large (being multiple wedges) - 
but the impact entirely or overwhelmingly positive.  Ken's definition here 
doesn't  separate positive from negative impacts (which of course can be in the 
eye of the beholder).   I am not worrying too much about this now that Ken has 
said biochar would be excluded from his 3-part definition.  Jim has endorsed 
(maybe authored?) articles opposing biochar;   does he place biochar in or out 
of the realm of geoengineering as defined by either of the above - or any 
other?   Or certain cases - Yes;  others - No?   I see only "No" cases.More 
below on Jim's message also.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
> 
> Carnegie Institution for Science 
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM, jim thomas  wrote:
> Ken and all,
> 
> 1. The CBD definition was the result of a prolonged process. Indeed the 
> expert group even published a separate 10 page note for COP11 outlining their 
> method and rationale for their preferred definition (see 
> http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-11/information/cop-11-inf-26-en.pdf)  
> that was  discussed in full session in SBSTTA 16 and i think also at COP11.  
> I'd suggest any further work on definition should acknowledge this 
> multilateral process between 193 countries as an authoratative starting point.
 [RWL3:   This was new.  I thought the folks writing this above report 
on a definition did a credible job and worked hard.  However, I doubt they were 
aware of the issues that Ken is addressing in his definitional notes of the 
past few days.   I agree with Jim's final sentence, though.  This list should 
say what was not covered in this CBD report.  I would say the CBD experts were 
not sufficiently conscious of the problems that happen as you try to lump two 
topics as different as

RE: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)

[Hawkins, Dave]

Ken,
Not to quibble, but when applied to preventing release of GHGs, "reduction in 
GHG concentrations" is also relative to a counterfactual.

From: kcalde...@gmail.com [kcalde...@gmail.com] on behalf of Ken Caldeira 
[kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 6:10 PM
To: Hawkins, Dave
Cc: jim thomas; Oliver Morton; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in 
an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)

Dave Hawkins:

I think you have a misreading.

You state "Another problem with your definition is that it would cover large 
scale efforts to prevent GHG emissions (since those would be taken with an 
intent to modify the climate from what it would be in the absence of the 
action)."

The proposed definition is (slightly amended):

"Geoengineering" refers to activities

(1) intended to modify climate

(2) and that have a greater than de minimis effect on an international commons 
or across international borders

(3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through environmental 
processes that are not direct consequences of the reduction in anthropogenic 
aerosol and/or greenhouse gas concentrations.

Preventing GHG emissions are (1) not intended to modify climate, but to avoid a 
climate modification. I think it is simple to say that this should be 
interpreted as modifying relative to factuals and not relative to 
counterfactuals.

Also, prevengint GHG emissions affects others through the reduction in 
anthropogenic GHG concentrations, which is explicitly excluded in clause (3).

-

Mike MacCracken:

 I am fine with broadening it, but it is a political calculation.

I think if the international legal community adopted this definitional 
approach, they could negotiate and decide how broad they want to make it. They 
could also change scope later.

I considered broadening it to include CO2 removal from the ocean, but if you 
make everything too abstract and general then it all becomes convoluted and 
nobody understands what the central idea is.

I can see that at this level it is already difficult to get people (cf. Dave 
Hawkins) to understand what I am trying to communicate.

I agree there must be better wording than the "other than" clause, but I can't 
think of it.

It would be nice to get some international legal scholars more intimately 
involved.

The only reason "intention" is there is to not include regular old CO2 
emissions that we produce every day  I would be happy to completely eliminate 
clause (1) but then countries would not allow such a definition be the basis 
for negotiation.

I would be fine with replacing (1) with "(1) intended to modify Earth's natural 
systems" or something like that.  However, for example, over-fishing would then 
be considered a form of geoengineering.  I would be fine with such a usage, but 
I am not sure you are going to get the rest of the world to go along.


___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 
kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira




On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Hawkins, Dave 
mailto:dhawk...@nrdc.org>> wrote:
Ken,
Another problem with your definition is that it would cover large scale efforts 
to prevent GHG emissions (since those would be taken with an intent to modify 
the climate from what it would be in the absence of the action).
If your primary purpose in crafting a definition is to exclude atmospheric GHG 
removal activities, you would be better off with a base definition coupled with 
specific categorical exclusions.  And I think it would be wise to not exclude 
ocean fertilization (and perhaps even some types of massive terrestrial 
fertilization).
By the way, on a related matter, I think solar radiation management is a 
misnomer; more accurately it is solar radiation interference (admittedly, that 
doesn't cover albedo enhancement schemes).
David

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
[geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Ken Caldeira 
[kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:28 PM
To: jim thomas
Cc: Oliver Morton; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in 
an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)

Jim,

We all know that things written by committee often don't turn out well, but to 
aid comparison, here are both definitions:

CBD:

"Geoengineering" is

 A deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and scale 
intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its impacts.

Alternate candidate definition:


"Geoengineering" refers to activities

RE: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)

[Hawkins, Dave]

Ken,
Another problem with your definition is that it would cover large scale efforts 
to prevent GHG emissions (since those would be taken with an intent to modify 
the climate from what it would be in the absence of the action).
If your primary purpose in crafting a definition is to exclude atmospheric GHG 
removal activities, you would be better off with a base definition coupled with 
specific categorical exclusions.  And I think it would be wise to not exclude 
ocean fertilization (and perhaps even some types of massive terrestrial 
fertilization).
By the way, on a related matter, I think solar radiation management is a 
misnomer; more accurately it is solar radiation interference (admittedly, that 
doesn't cover albedo enhancement schemes).
David

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 3:28 PM
To: jim thomas
Cc: Oliver Morton; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in 
an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)

Jim,

We all know that things written by committee often don't turn out well, but to 
aid comparison, here are both definitions:

CBD:

"Geoengineering" is

 A deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and scale 
intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its impacts.

Alternate candidate definition:


"Geoengineering" refers to activities

(1) intended to modify climate

(2) and that has a greater than de minimis effect on an international commons 
or across international borders

(3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through environmental 
mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse 
gases from the atmosphere.

I suggest that the latter definition would be more useful and more easily 
applied in practice and do less damage to the development of technologies such 
as biochar, biomass energy with CCS, reforestation, and so on, that present no 
special risks, cross-border issues, international commons issues, etc.

Best,

Ken


___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 
kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira




On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM, jim thomas 
mailto:j...@etcgroup.org>> wrote:
Ken and all,

1. The CBD definition was the result of a prolonged process. Indeed the expert 
group even published a separate 10 page note for COP11 outlining their method 
and rationale for their preferred definition (see 
http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-11/information/cop-11-inf-26-en.pdf)  
that was  discussed in full session in SBSTTA 16 and i think also at COP11.  
I'd suggest any further work on definition should acknowledge this multilateral 
process between 193 countries as an authoratative starting point.

2. While issues of geography, of the commons and cross-borderness, are highly 
important in geoengineering governance i don't see why they rationally  have 
any place in framing a definition of geoengineering itself (except as a baldly 
political move to maneuver loopholes into a governance system). The appropriate 
place to raise those issues is in the specifics of how a political decision is 
made about a geoengineering technology, not in trying to bias an initial 
definition.

 In practical terms defining whether something is geoengineering or not by 
whether the activity crosses a set of lines on a map is to muddle physical 
reality with historical accident and will give quite perverse decisions. Under 
your proposed definition below the United States could choose to artificially 
fertilize all of Lake  Michigan or Russia to fertilize all of Lake Baikal with 
clear ecological impacts and yet it would not be considered geoengineering 
since it  didn't cross international borders. Yet if a small patch of Lake 
Malawi was fertilized that would be considered geoengineering in your 
definition since there happens to be an international border in that lake. In 
physical terms that difference is non-sensical. I wonder if Canada or Russia 
decided to put much of their entire landmass under an SRM scheme that somehow 
didn't move out of their territory (lets say create whitened low level cloud 
cover in someway) whether that would also fall outside of this definition 
(since its a standard of X AND Y AND Z that need to be met to meet the 
definition).

3. You say 'de minimis' has a well established standard which i'd be interested 
to see.. but  naively it strikes me as a cover for argumentation by a proponent 
of any scheme that they fall outside of the definition b y claiming to have 
only a 'de minimis' effect. De minimis from whose viewpoint? a claimed 10,000 
sq km fertilized patch was argued to be smal

Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)

[Mike MacCracken]

Hi Ken—It bothers me a bit that both definitions seem to limit
geoengineering to affecting climate, when there are other ways that
intervention might occur, such as to modify ocean acidity. Might it be that
the definition should say “counteract human influences such as those on the
climate and environment”? I realize that this might greatly expand what is
encompassed by the term geoengineering, and this would lead me to suggest
having these definitions by for the term “climate engineering” or “climate
geoengineering”.

An additional concern with the CBD definition is that is seems to limit
geoengineering to approaches that are trying to counteract everything—both
the change and the impacts. One could imagine, for example, just going after
some of the impacts. All a bit subtle, but would an effort to limit the
intensification of hurricanes count as it is not really going to be
affecting the climate, just an impact (at least in terms of how the public
might interpret the words).

On your definition you seem to focus as just being on “climate” and so would
not count responses focusing just on impacts (though both of these comments
have to do with what the definition of climate is). And you also don’t say
anthropogenic influences on climate—leaving it open that one might choose to
counteract natural aspects of the climate (so your definition would work in
the 1960s for the types of proposals to “improve” the climate). Related to
this, I generally like the word “counteract” than “modify”--though basically
having your definition include all the GHG emissions we are doing, and would
include the release of SO2 as we do now, etc.

And on the “other hand” wording, I am not sure how to clear it up, but I do
think the phrasing needs improvement.

Mike


On 9/25/13 3:28 PM, "Ken Caldeira"  wrote:

> Jim,
> 
> We all know that things written by committee often don't turn out well, but to
> aid comparison, here are both definitions:
> 
> CBD:
> 
> "Geoengineering" is
> 
>  A deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and scale
> intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and its impacts. 
> 
> Alternate candidate definition:
> 
> "Geoengineering" refers to activities 
> 
> (1) intended to modify climate
> 
> (2) and that has a greater than de minimis effect on an international commons
> or across international borders 
> 
> (3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through environmental
> mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse
> gases from the atmosphere.
> 
> 
> I suggest that the latter definition would be more useful and more easily
> applied in practice and do less damage to the development of technologies such
> as biochar, biomass energy with CCS, reforestation, and so on, that present no
> special risks, cross-border issues, international commons issues, etc.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Ken
> 
> 
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
> 
> Carnegie Institution for Science 
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:32 PM, jim thomas  wrote:
>> Ken and all,
>> 
>> 1. The CBD definition was the result of a prolonged process. Indeed the
>> expert group even published a separate 10 page note for COP11 outlining their
>> method and rationale for their preferred definition
>> (see http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-11/information/cop-11-inf-26-en.
>> pdf)  that was  discussed in full session in SBSTTA 16 and i think also at
>> COP11.  I'd suggest any further work on definition should acknowledge this
>> multilateral process between 193 countries as an authoratative starting
>> point.
>> 
>> 2. While issues of geography, of the commons and cross-borderness, are highly
>> important in geoengineering governance i don't see why they rationally  have
>> any place in framing a definition of geoengineering itself (except as a
>> baldly political move to maneuver loopholes into a governance system). The
>> appropriate place to raise those issues is in the specifics of how a
>> political decision is made about a geoengineering technology, not in trying
>> to bias an initial definition.
>> 
>>  In practical terms defining whether something is geoengineering or not by
>> whether the activity crosses a set of lines on a map is to muddle physical
>> reality with historical accident and will give quite perverse decisions.
>> Under your proposed definition below the United States could choose to
>> artificially fertilize all of Lake  Michigan or Russia to fertilize all of
>> Lake Baikal with clear ecological impacts and yet it would not be considered
>> geoengineering since it  didn't cross international borders. Yet if a small
>> patch of Lake Malawi was fertilized that would be considered geoengineering
>> in your definition since there happens to be an international border in that
>> lake. In p

Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)

[Ken Caldeira]

Just got a note from some international legal experts saying that "de
minimis" was an established standard but "material effect" is not well
grounded in international law, so I now suggest this form:

*
*

*"Geoengineering" refers to activities *

*(1) intended to modify climate*

*(2) and that has a greater than de minimis *effect on an international
commons or across international borders

*(3) and where that greater than de minimis effect occurs through
environmental mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols
and/or greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.*
*
*

___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira




On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Ken Caldeira  wrote:

> The problem is that in practice people use the word "geoengineering" to
> refer to things they don't like, don't want to see deployed, don't want to
> fund, seek to impede research on, etc.
>
> "Geoengineering" in practice is a pejorative term that has already been
> brought into legal parlance as a result of decisions by the CBD.
>
> If we want to help proposed technologies that bear no novel or
> trans-boundary or international commons risks, and have the potential, at
> least in theory, to diminish climate damage, then we need to get them out
> from under this pejorative umbrella.
>
> Defining "geoengineering" in the way you do, I fear, will harm the
> development of biochar, biomass energy with CCS, direct air capture,
> afforestation/reforestation, etc.
>
>  I believe it was an error for the CBD ever to use this term (on this,
> more at a later date). Now that they have used it, maybe we can at least
> define it in a way that does the least harm.
>
>
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM, O Morton  wrote:
>
>> Ooops. I did what I was compaining about. "Aimed at" is as bad as
>> "intended".
>>
>> What i should have said:  large-scale technological interventions that
>> act to decouple climate outcomes from cumulative greenhouse-gas emissions.
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 11:56:06 UTC+1, O Morton wrote:
>>>
>>> I think there's a problem with "intentended". It defines the act in
>>> terms of the mental stance of the actor, which is not open to objective
>>> scrutiny, This opens the possibility of large climate manipulations which
>>> are geoengineering to some but not to others, which I think is what you're
>>> trying to avoid.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I prefer a definition for climate geoengineering along these
>>> lines: large-scale technological interventions aimed at decoupling climate
>>> outcomes from cumulative greenhouse emissions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 07:45:15 UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote:

 Taking Ron Larson's comments into account, and also comments made
 separately by Fred Zimmerman and Mike MacCracken, a candidate definition
 now reads:

 *"Geoengineering" refers to activities *

 *(1) intended to modify climate*

 *(2) and that has a material effect on an international commons or
 across international borders *

 *(3) and where that material effect occurs through environmental
 mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse
 gases from the atmosphere.*
 Note that this covers SRM approaches, CDR approaches that have direct
 effects on an international commons or across international borders, plus
 novel ideas that do not fall neatly into the SRM/CDR dichotomy.

 Again, the goal is to carve out things that pose no special risks and
 can be regulated nationally or locally, such as biochar, BECCS, DAC,
 afforestatoin/reforestation, etc.

 --

 1.

 In response to Ron Larson's comment, I would lump biochar in with BECCS
 and DAC as approaches which in general pose no novel risks, so in most
 cases I would not consider them "geoengineering" under this definition. I
 think this would help the development of biochar, BECCS, DAC, and other
 carbon dioxide removal methods that pose no novel risks or governance
 issues.

 I like Ron's suggestion of "removal" of a material rather than
 "reduction" of a concentration. Removal is usually locally verifiable
 whereas verifying a reduction in concentration could be difficult. Happy to
 have lawyers argue over this phrase.

 The "from the atmosphere" may be considered limiting. I would be fine
 with including ocean removal, but I would like to keep things as simple as
 possible.

 We don't care whether we actually remove

[geo] Re: World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report - environment - New Scientist

[Brian Cartwright]

Let me point out that the source quoted in this article only said,

 "CO2-induced warming is projected to remain approximately constant for 
many centuries following a complete cessation of emission. A large fraction 
of climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net 
anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period."

So where does the term "geoengineering" come in?  It appears to be the New 
Scientist writer's paraphrase of that quote, and only aggravates the 
presumption that drastic action has to result from failure to control 
tailpipes and smokestacks.

Meanwhile some of the geoengineering thinkers on this group are seeking to 
limit the term "geoengineering" to those interventions that most require 
international governance.

Who is speaking up for the natural systems that have always controlled CO2 
levels and could play a part in massive draw-down on a global scale?  If 
mitigation is plan A, I would want a robust plan B to give full play to 
such processes as photosynthesis and restorative agriculture, then *if we 
need* geoengineering (in the well-governed sense) it is plan C.

Brian

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:13:04 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:
>
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24261-world-wont-cool-without-geoengineering-warns-report.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UkLSzyO3PFo
>
> World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report
>
> 11:40 25 September 2013 by Fred Pearce
>
> < snipped article quotation >
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)

[Ken Caldeira]

The problem is that in practice people use the word "geoengineering" to
refer to things they don't like, don't want to see deployed, don't want to
fund, seek to impede research on, etc.

"Geoengineering" in practice is a pejorative term that has already been
brought into legal parlance as a result of decisions by the CBD.

If we want to help proposed technologies that bear no novel or
trans-boundary or international commons risks, and have the potential, at
least in theory, to diminish climate damage, then we need to get them out
from under this pejorative umbrella.

Defining "geoengineering" in the way you do, I fear, will harm the
development of biochar, biomass energy with CCS, direct air capture,
afforestation/reforestation, etc.

I believe it was an error for the CBD ever to use this term (on this, more
at a later date). Now that they have used it, maybe we can at least define
it in a way that does the least harm.


___
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira




On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM, O Morton  wrote:

> Ooops. I did what I was compaining about. "Aimed at" is as bad as
> "intended".
>
> What i should have said:  large-scale technological interventions that act
> to decouple climate outcomes from cumulative greenhouse-gas emissions.
>
>
> On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 11:56:06 UTC+1, O Morton wrote:
>>
>> I think there's a problem with "intentended". It defines the act in terms
>> of the mental stance of the actor, which is not open to objective scrutiny,
>> This opens the possibility of large climate manipulations which are
>> geoengineering to some but not to others, which I think is what you're
>> trying to avoid.
>>
>> FWIW, I prefer a definition for climate geoengineering along these lines:
>> large-scale technological interventions aimed at decoupling climate
>> outcomes from cumulative greenhouse emissions.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 07:45:15 UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>>>
>>> Taking Ron Larson's comments into account, and also comments made
>>> separately by Fred Zimmerman and Mike MacCracken, a candidate definition
>>> now reads:
>>>
>>> *"Geoengineering" refers to activities *
>>>
>>> *(1) intended to modify climate*
>>>
>>> *(2) and that has a material effect on an international commons or
>>> across international borders *
>>>
>>> *(3) and where that material effect occurs through environmental
>>> mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse
>>> gases from the atmosphere.*
>>> Note that this covers SRM approaches, CDR approaches that have direct
>>> effects on an international commons or across international borders, plus
>>> novel ideas that do not fall neatly into the SRM/CDR dichotomy.
>>>
>>> Again, the goal is to carve out things that pose no special risks and
>>> can be regulated nationally or locally, such as biochar, BECCS, DAC,
>>> afforestatoin/reforestation, etc.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 1.
>>>
>>> In response to Ron Larson's comment, I would lump biochar in with BECCS
>>> and DAC as approaches which in general pose no novel risks, so in most
>>> cases I would not consider them "geoengineering" under this definition. I
>>> think this would help the development of biochar, BECCS, DAC, and other
>>> carbon dioxide removal methods that pose no novel risks or governance
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> I like Ron's suggestion of "removal" of a material rather than
>>> "reduction" of a concentration. Removal is usually locally verifiable
>>> whereas verifying a reduction in concentration could be difficult. Happy to
>>> have lawyers argue over this phrase.
>>>
>>> The "from the atmosphere" may be considered limiting. I would be fine
>>> with including ocean removal, but I would like to keep things as simple as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> We don't care whether we actually remove the same molecules, we just
>>> want to decrease the concentrations, so anthropogenic aerosols or
>>> greenhouse gases would need to be understood in terms of concentration. In
>>> this case: *Anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases are by
>>> definition those in excess of natural background concentrations.*
>>>
>>> 2.
>>>
>>> Agree with Fred Zimmerman that I would be fine with lawyers arguing over
>>> "greater than *de minimis*" vs "material".  As a non-lawyer, I read
>>> "material effect" to be equivalent to "greater than *de minimis*effect". 
>>> Happy to have lawyers argue over this phrase.
>>>
>>> In contrast to Fred, I like the specification of "across international
>>> borders". Purely national effects that have no material (or no greater than
>>> *de minimis*) effects across international borders can be dealt with
>>> under national legislation. I see no reason to invoke any international
>>> governance.
>>>
>>> Also this trans-border/commons approach also gets around t

Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)

[O Morton]

Ooops. I did what I was compaining about. "Aimed at" is as bad as 
"intended".

What i should have said:  large-scale technological interventions that act 
to decouple climate outcomes from cumulative greenhouse-gas emissions. 

On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 11:56:06 UTC+1, O Morton wrote:
>
> I think there's a problem with "intentended". It defines the act in terms 
> of the mental stance of the actor, which is not open to objective scrutiny, 
> This opens the possibility of large climate manipulations which are 
> geoengineering to some but not to others, which I think is what you're 
> trying to avoid. 
>
> FWIW, I prefer a definition for climate geoengineering along these lines: 
> large-scale technological interventions aimed at decoupling climate 
> outcomes from cumulative greenhouse emissions. 
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 07:45:15 UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>>
>> Taking Ron Larson's comments into account, and also comments made 
>> separately by Fred Zimmerman and Mike MacCracken, a candidate definition 
>> now reads:
>>
>> *"Geoengineering" refers to activities *
>>
>> *(1) intended to modify climate*
>>
>> *(2) and that has a material effect on an international commons or 
>> across international borders *
>>
>> *(3) and where that material effect occurs through environmental 
>> mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse 
>> gases from the atmosphere.*
>> Note that this covers SRM approaches, CDR approaches that have direct 
>> effects on an international commons or across international borders, plus 
>> novel ideas that do not fall neatly into the SRM/CDR dichotomy.
>>
>> Again, the goal is to carve out things that pose no special risks and can 
>> be regulated nationally or locally, such as biochar, BECCS, DAC, 
>> afforestatoin/reforestation, etc.
>>
>> --
>>
>> 1.  
>>
>> In response to Ron Larson's comment, I would lump biochar in with BECCS 
>> and DAC as approaches which in general pose no novel risks, so in most 
>> cases I would not consider them "geoengineering" under this definition. I 
>> think this would help the development of biochar, BECCS, DAC, and other 
>> carbon dioxide removal methods that pose no novel risks or governance 
>> issues.
>>
>> I like Ron's suggestion of "removal" of a material rather than 
>> "reduction" of a concentration. Removal is usually locally verifiable 
>> whereas verifying a reduction in concentration could be difficult. Happy to 
>> have lawyers argue over this phrase.
>>
>> The "from the atmosphere" may be considered limiting. I would be fine 
>> with including ocean removal, but I would like to keep things as simple as 
>> possible.
>>
>> We don't care whether we actually remove the same molecules, we just want 
>> to decrease the concentrations, so anthropogenic aerosols or greenhouse 
>> gases would need to be understood in terms of concentration. In this case:
>>  *Anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases are by definition those in 
>> excess of natural background concentrations.* 
>>
>> 2.
>>
>> Agree with Fred Zimmerman that I would be fine with lawyers arguing over 
>> "greater than *de minimis*" vs "material".  As a non-lawyer, I read 
>> "material effect" to be equivalent to "greater than *de minimis*effect". 
>> Happy to have lawyers argue over this phrase.
>>
>> In contrast to Fred, I like the specification of "across international 
>> borders". Purely national effects that have no material (or no greater than 
>> *de minimis*) effects across international borders can be dealt with 
>> under national legislation. I see no reason to invoke any international 
>> governance.
>>
>> Also this trans-border/commons approach also gets around the whole can of 
>> worms around defining what "large scale" means, which is a  prominent term 
>> in many other proposed definitions of "geoengineering".
>>
>> 3.
>>
>> To respond to Mike MacCracken's comment, CDR techniques act on 
>> concentrations, not on emissions. In any case, the current definition 
>> avoids use of both "concentrations" and "emissions".
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Thanks everybody for these comments.
>>
>> I think we are pretty close to a definition that I would like to see 
>> broadly accepted.  
>>
>> Things like biochar, BECCS, DAC, afforestation/reforestation do not 
>> deserve to be tarred with the same brush that tars injection of sulfur into 
>> the stratosphere.  Most of these approaches bear more in common with 
>> mitigation approaches than they do with sunlight reflection methods.
>>
>> We are doing a disservice to potentially valuable technologies if we, by 
>> our imprecision of language, give the impression that these potentially 
>> valuable methods bear large and unprecedented kinds of risks.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> ___
>> Ken Caldeira
>>
>> Carnegie Institution for Science 
>> Dept of Global Ecology
>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.ed

[geo] World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report - environment - New Scientist

[Andrew Lockley]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24261-world-wont-cool-without-geoengineering-warns-report.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UkLSzyO3PFo

World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report

11:40 25 September 2013 by Fred Pearce

Global warming is irreversible without massive geoengineering of the
atmosphere's chemistry. This stark warning comes from the draft summary of
the latest climate assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.Delegates from national governments are discussing the draft this
week, prior to its release on Friday morning.According to one of its lead
authors, and the latest draft seen by New Scientist, the report will say:
"CO2-induced warming is projected to remain approximately constant for many
centuries following a complete cessation of emission. A large fraction of
climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net
anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained
period."In other words, even if all the world ran on carbon-free energy and
deforestation ceased, the only way of lowering temperatures would be
to devise a scheme for sucking hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon
dioxide out of the atmosphere.Much of this week's report, the fifth
assessment of the IPCC working group on the physical science of climate
change, will reaffirm the findings of the previous four assessments,
published regularly since 1990.It will point out that to limit global
warming to 2 °C will require cumulative CO2 emissions from all human
sources since the start of the industrial revolution to be kept below about
a trillion tonnes of carbon. So far, we have emitted about half this.
Current emissions are around 10.5 billion tonnes of carbon annually, and
rising.

Since the last assessment, published in 2007, the IPCC has almost doubled
its estimate of the maximum sea-level rise likely in the coming century to
about 1 metre. They also conclude that it is now "virtually certain" that
sea levels will continue to rise for many centuries, even if warming
ceases, due to the delayed effects of thermal expansion of warming oceans
and melting ice sheets.The draft report says the available evidence now
suggests that above a certain threshold of warming, the Greenland ice sheet
will almost disappear within approximately 1000 years, which will result in
7 metres of global sea-level rise. It estimates that the threshold may lie
between 1 °C and 4 °C of warming, but is not confident of this figure.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: [geo] proposed definition of "geoengineering", suitable for use in an international legal context (version 25 Sep 2013)

[O Morton]

I think there's a problem with "intentended". It defines the act in terms 
of the mental stance of the actor, which is not open to objective scrutiny, 
This opens the possibility of large climate manipulations which are 
geoengineering to some but not to others, which I think is what you're 
trying to avoid. 

FWIW, I prefer a definition for climate geoengineering along these lines: 
large-scale technological interventions aimed at decoupling climate 
outcomes from cumulative greenhouse emissions. 



On Wednesday, 25 September 2013 07:45:15 UTC+1, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>
> Taking Ron Larson's comments into account, and also comments made 
> separately by Fred Zimmerman and Mike MacCracken, a candidate definition 
> now reads:
>
> *"Geoengineering" refers to activities *
>
> *(1) intended to modify climate*
>
> *(2) and that has a material effect on an international commons or across 
> international borders *
>
> *(3) and where that material effect occurs through environmental 
> mechanisms other than a removal of anthropogenic aerosols and/or greenhouse 
> gases from the atmosphere.*
> Note that this covers SRM approaches, CDR approaches that have direct 
> effects on an international commons or across international borders, plus 
> novel ideas that do not fall neatly into the SRM/CDR dichotomy.
>
> Again, the goal is to carve out things that pose no special risks and can 
> be regulated nationally or locally, such as biochar, BECCS, DAC, 
> afforestatoin/reforestation, etc.
>
> --
>
> 1.  
>
> In response to Ron Larson's comment, I would lump biochar in with BECCS 
> and DAC as approaches which in general pose no novel risks, so in most 
> cases I would not consider them "geoengineering" under this definition. I 
> think this would help the development of biochar, BECCS, DAC, and other 
> carbon dioxide removal methods that pose no novel risks or governance 
> issues.
>
> I like Ron's suggestion of "removal" of a material rather than "reduction" 
> of a concentration. Removal is usually locally verifiable whereas verifying 
> a reduction in concentration could be difficult. Happy to have lawyers 
> argue over this phrase.
>
> The "from the atmosphere" may be considered limiting. I would be fine with 
> including ocean removal, but I would like to keep things as simple as 
> possible.
>
> We don't care whether we actually remove the same molecules, we just want 
> to decrease the concentrations, so anthropogenic aerosols or greenhouse 
> gases would need to be understood in terms of concentration. In this case:
>  *Anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases are by definition those in 
> excess of natural background concentrations.* 
>
> 2.
>
> Agree with Fred Zimmerman that I would be fine with lawyers arguing over 
> "greater than *de minimis*" vs "material".  As a non-lawyer, I read 
> "material effect" to be equivalent to "greater than *de minimis* effect". 
> Happy to have lawyers argue over this phrase.
>
> In contrast to Fred, I like the specification of "across international 
> borders". Purely national effects that have no material (or no greater than 
> *de minimis*) effects across international borders can be dealt with 
> under national legislation. I see no reason to invoke any international 
> governance.
>
> Also this trans-border/commons approach also gets around the whole can of 
> worms around defining what "large scale" means, which is a  prominent term 
> in many other proposed definitions of "geoengineering".
>
> 3.
>
> To respond to Mike MacCracken's comment, CDR techniques act on 
> concentrations, not on emissions. In any case, the current definition 
> avoids use of both "concentrations" and "emissions".
>
> ---
>
> Thanks everybody for these comments.
>
> I think we are pretty close to a definition that I would like to see 
> broadly accepted.  
>
> Things like biochar, BECCS, DAC, afforestation/reforestation do not 
> deserve to be tarred with the same brush that tars injection of sulfur into 
> the stratosphere.  Most of these approaches bear more in common with 
> mitigation approaches than they do with sunlight reflection methods.
>
> We are doing a disservice to potentially valuable technologies if we, by 
> our imprecision of language, give the impression that these potentially 
> valuable methods bear large and unprecedented kinds of risks.
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
>
>
>  
>
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science 
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu 
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Ronal W. Larson 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>> Ken cc List:
>>
>>1.   I like your starting point.  Thanks for providing it.   Re "de 
>> minimis",  I prefer it over "material".
>>
>>2.   My concern is that you have two (separate, distinctly different) 
>> criteria in a relatively long sentence, where some readers may 

[geo] Some whats, whys and worries of geoengineering - Online First - Springer

[Andrew Lockley]

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0862-9

Abstract

In this paper I discuss the nature of geoengineering, some of its
attractions, and some reasons for concern. I claim that there is confusion
in the use of the term ‘geoengineering’ that is related to larger concerns
about the language in which responses to climate change are discussed. I
conclude that despite some reasonable grounds for suspicion, research in
areas that involve carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management
should go on as part of the general portfolio of climate-related research,
competing with the full panoply of other possible responses to climate
change.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.